In the summer of 2015, I changed my default browser on Windows from Internet Explorer to Chrome, and for the most part, I haven’t looked back—Chrome is fast and stable.

The only real stumbling block I keep hitting is that the Alt+F,C keyboard chord isn’t bound to the command [ File Menu > Close tab ] as it is in nearly every other browser and Windows application that supports tabs. Neither of the alternative hotkeys (Ctrl+F4 or Ctrl+W) feels as natural (especially on laptop keyboards) and I haven’t been able to get accustomed to using either of them.

Unfortunately, while Chrome’s extensibility model is powerful, there’s no mechanism to add commands to its menus , and writing an extension that takes over Alt+F (suppressing its default behavior of opening the hamburger menu) is an unpleasant alternative.

Now that I’m building Chrome regularly , I considered just maintaining my own private fork, but compiling Chrome is an undertaking not to be taken lightly.

So… what to do? Write a utility process that thread-injects into Chrome to change the menu? Install a global keyboard hook? Something even more fragile?

Things were simpler when I was 15 years old… everything was closed-source, and when a program didn’t work as I liked, I didn’t have a lot of confusing choices. For instance, I once bought a CD of street maps but the viewer program’s window refused to resize larger than 800×600 pixels. Not having any better ideas, I opened the binary in a hex editor program and looked for the sequence of bytes 20 03 near the sequence 58 02 , the hexadecimal encodings of 800 and 600 respectively. I then changed both values to 4006 , hoping to set a maximum size of 1600×1600 pixels. And to my surprise and delight, this worked fine.

Luckily for 36 year-old me, Chrome recently added a “Cast” command to the Alt+F menu; I don’t ever need to cast my tabs, but there’s now a menu entry that responds to the Alt+F,C chord. All I need to do is change what actually happens when you click it.

Even more fortunately, Chrome is open-source. So I can easily see how the Cast command was added to the code :

I now know that IDC_ROUTE_MEDIA is the command identifier for the action taken when the user invokes the menu item. IDC_ROUTE_MEDIA is defined as35011 , or 0x88c3 , which will be represented in the binary in little-endian C3 88 . And my instinctive hunch that the desired command identifier will be named IDC_CLOSE_TAB pans out—it’s defined as 34015 , or 0x84df . So, all we need to do is overwrite the correct C3 88 with DF 84 and maybe we’ll magically get the behavior we want?

Uh oh . It turns out that there are almost 300 instances of C3 88 in Chrome.dll … how do we know which one to replace?

Well, the correct replacement will probably be the one near IDS_MEDIA_ROUTER_MENU_ITEM_TITLE (defined as 14630 0x3926, 26 39 ), right? Let’s whip up a dumb little program to search for those values near each other. We find just two instances… one represents Chrome’s main menu and the other is used for the webpage’s context menu.

Unfortunately, this search approach isn’t completely stable, because Chrome’s string resources are generated ( generated_resources.h ) and thus they may change from build-to-build. To automate this (since Chrome releases new Canary builds daily, and minor updates to Stable builds every few weeks) we’ll need to use a more relaxed signature to find the bytes of interest. For similar reasons, we cannot reliably just overwrite the menu text identifier 26 39 with 2D 42 (IDS_TAB_CXMENU_CLOSETAB aka “Close tab”) to change the menu text, since that definition also fluctuates. We could edit the raw “Cast…” string inside en-US.pak , but if we do that it’ll change both the main menu AND the context menu. Since I hit ALT+F,C blindly, I’ll just leave that string alone.

But… But… Security?

To overwrite a machine-installed Chrome inside the Program Files folder, you must already be running as Administrator. And an Administrator already “owns” the data on the machine.

Overwriting a per-user-installed Chrome inside the %LocalAppData% folder only gives you the ability to hack yourself.

What about code-signing?

As you might hope, Chrome.dll is code-signed:

… and if you modify the bytes, the signature is no longer valid:

However, this matters relatively little in practice, because Windows itself generally does not verify module signatures except under special configurations (e.g. AppLocker ). So nobody complains about our little tweak.

What Else Might Go Wrong?

I was originally worried that Chrome’s fancy delta-patching system might break when Chrome.dll has been modified, but it turns out that the delta-patches are computed against the cached installer binary. So there’s no harm there.

From experience, I can tell you that whenever Chrome does something weird, I now assume it’s the fault of this little hackery, even when it isn’t .

As smart people have said… just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should .